A quote of interest regarding Genesis

Post Reply New Topic

The mummified Pharoahs from even before 2200 BC look alot like modern Egyptians, and very little like modern american indians.

You mentioned "horses...chickens" coming with humans on boats. Except for dogs none of those domestic animals existed in the Americas before Columbus ( Europeans didnt have tobacco, corn, potatoes, nor tomatoes before Columbus either).

More important: how did the new world get stocked with its WILD animals?
you're saying that all of the cougars, jaguars, toucans, prarie dogs, and raccoons, came to America from the Old World.

But none of those animals has ever existed in the Old World. How could animals come from a place where they never existed?

Why even mention the "landbride between..alaska and russia"?
The bering sea becomes a landbridge only when there is an Ice Age.

And the four Ice Ages of course- never happened- because they all predate Genisis.
So there could never have been a Bering Sea Land Bridge.

Actually, the current plate tectonics modeling of the flood would have a lot of volcanic activity, dispensing ash and other particulate matter into the atmosphere and reducing the radiant heat absorbed. In other words, the ice age would have followed the flood. If it is as you say that the landbridge only occurs during an ice age, that would actually function quite nicely in terms of the ordering of events.

Wild animals may not have always been wild. Certainly, you can enumerate the most unlikely to be domesticated, but even lions and elephants have been. Undesirable creatures may have crossed over the landbridge, while others, with the non-European colonists of the later-to-be-called-Americas, might have gone along with their human domesticators aboard ship (according to similar reasons for which the Europeans brought animals with them: for purposes of livestock, companionship, beasts of burden, etc.)

Interesting strawman, that you assume I would believe that something didn't occur just because it is alleged to have occurred prior to written history. That's not the case though. Rather, events for which there is evidence for them having occurred have probably occurred, although the timeline in which they are placed is not a necessity. The event of the meteorite strike which is suppose to have killed off the dinosaurs, for instance, did occur, by evidence of impact. However such an event need not have occurred 65 million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, or quintillion years ago. Rather, I think it is more likely to be the trigger for the catastrophe of the flood.

Regarding the Egyptians, they've basically stayed in the same place rather than emigrate. The populations dispersing from Mesopotamia took their genes along with them. The ones that stayed throughout the years, assuming that is possible, would continue to look different with each generation, and 4200years/40(years/generation) is about 105 generations from the dispersal.

There i was trying to figure out why the ancestors of the australian aborigonies would sail to australia ( which never had any landbridges) with their boats filled to the gunnels with their cute cuddly pets taken from the ark like death adder snakes, and poisonous spiders, but at the same time forget to bring useful animals like horses, cattle, and sheep, when you give me some more confusing stuff.

I always thought that Genisis happened in one week in 4004 BC- a year that was but a fortnight before history and civilization began in the Bronze Age Middle East, So, there could be essentially no "prehistoric times."

But now you're telling me that Genisis happened at some (considerably) earlier date?

you're telling me that science AND the bible are both in error because the planet is younger than the former says but older than the date given by the latter.



Okay. What was this in-between date? In what year did that week happen when the whole ball of wax got started?

Too bad there is gazillon archeological proofs that contredict that "historical document". Why don't you simply take the Bible as a
culturally relevent myth epic written by a people trying to make sense of things?

All historical documents are customarily read with a pinch of salt, and compared and contrasted with other documents. Bias and closeness to source are taken into account. They are considered based on modern science and awareness. (So, for example. accounts that end with "Erik sailed off the edge of the world" are read with the knowledge that such a term translates as "Lost at Sea".) The information they contain is often mutable as new material comes to light.

The bible fails as a historical document. Yes, it is old. It is also not an "original text", or even a complete text. It is heavily biased. It barely registers as a secondary source, never mind a primary one. It contradicts itself.

Now if we were to start by studying the various "books" that have been disallowed from the bible by the church, we might get a clearer idea of the historical veracity of the whole...

Biased? In what way? That it describes what it describes? Why don't you say that all U.S. History textbooks are biased in favor of African slavery because they include the history of African-American slaves as part of U.S. history? Never mind the buildup to the U.S. Civil War. And why IS it the American Civil War, anyway? Doesn't that reflect bias in favor of the northern states? Why not call it what is WAS, the War of Northern Aggression? Would that not be less biased? Or was the Confederacy wrong in asserting its sovereignty?

My point is that the Bible is no more biased than you'd expect from other historical documents. The Torah, for instance, traces the beginning of Hebrew history to the first recorded man, a special creation of God. From there, it identifies the patriarchal characters from which the nation of Israel (and surrounding kingdoms) originated. What's so wrong with that? Even the queen of England has something called a genealogy! Genealogies of the Bible hit the high points of family lines. No need to read bias here. The Torah also lists the laws given to Moses. Laws are, among other things, means by which national customs and codes of conduct are defined. We have laws in our country as well as legislative assemblies by which to form those laws according to the will of the people. The nation of Israel was governed directly by (or was supposed to be, at least) God. How one nation defines its laws and traditions is not the business of other nations. The laws of the United States apply to the United States, and likewise the Law of the Israelites applied to the Israelites. What here is unnecessarily biased?

What about the other writings? Judges/Ruth provide a transition between the time of the exodus and the conquest of Canaan up to the lineage of King David. This period was fraught with conflict while Israel attempted to displace the previous inhabitants. The writer of Judges does not paint a pretty picture of Israelite history here. A biased author would have more likely (as is known from written histories dating from ancient Egypt) to have reported favorably of this time period, with victories at every turn and the people perfectly following the will of God. The TRUTH the Bible reports is actually the opposite. If the Bible is biased propaganda, why deal so harshly with the people for which it was written? The books of Samuel, likewise, do not shed a positive light on the rise of kings in ancient Israel.

The books of Kings and Chronicles offer varying perspectives on the kings of Israel and Judea. Chronicles reads more like a report card on how well or how poorly the kings kept the Law. More often than not, the records of the kings paint a dismal picture of the kingship. Further, those books also CITE extra-Biblical sources from which certain information is drawn, most likely scrolls which would have been found in palace libraries or within the temple. Unfortunately, these scrolls are not known to exist any longer and perhaps the OT is all that remains of them. Nevertheless, factual, institutional dissertations are highly documented and rigorously defended by those who write them. There is NO reason to believe that the books of the kings didn't uphold any less of a standard.

The books of the prophets, also, show no unnecessary bias. Once again, the prophets paint a dismal portrait of the status quo in which they were written. The prophets simply say (repeatedly) that it isn't too late to turn from sinful deeds and follow God's will through His laws and covenants. The prophets ALSO promise the return of a faithful remnant and the reestablishment of temple worship. They also promise the Messiah. Once again, I don't see the bias here. The prophets (and the books of the kings, as well) report that there were false prophets that pretty much just told the kings what they wanted to hear. The Law provides ways in which prophets may be tested, and very often harsh consequences befell those who were seduced by overly optimistic false prophets. If the Bible is so biased, why so much bad news? Because the Bible is NOT biased.

I recently finished up reading through the OT and am now nearly halfway through Luke. The Gospels are written only in part to be persuasive. But they aren't persuasive to the point of ONLY telling the reader what the reader wants to believe. Rather, they read like eyewitness accounts. Matthew was a close follower of Jesus himself. As I recall (correct me if I'm mistaken), Mark was a close companion of Peter, someone who often acted as a spokesman for Jesus' disciples. Luke was a close companion of Paul and set about interviewing eyewitnesses about their recollection of Jesus' life and ministry. His Gospel reflects the skill of an adept biographer. Luke's gospel shows clear influences from Mark's gospel. So committing the accounts of people who knew Jesus firsthand to paper shows no bias at all. If that is true, then every newspaper, every network news report, and CNN are all biased. And so is every judge and jury in every court in this country. You might as well ignore everything you see on televised news broadcasts, everything you read in the newspapers, and every single law that has ever been written.

I'm not as knowledgeable (yet) of the epistles as I am of everything else I've read up to this point, but I can confidently say this: The letters were the first communications of the apostles to various Christian church. And because they are the earliest communications among churches besides the oral transmission of the gospels, they are in large part words of encouragement to congregants of a completely new religion. However, they say a LOT more than just "keep on keeping on." They also relate the prevalence in certain places of behaviors unbecoming a congregation of Christ-followers. Why include corrective words dealing with potentially devastating and embarrassing situations if your intention is worthless, biased propaganda? This is highly DIScouraging and non-conducive to a hippie-like cult of Greeks just wanting to get their warm-and-fuzzies on--you know, like in certain churches today.

No, there is no unnecessary bias. The Bible reveals what the Bible reveals, simply put. It doesn't mask the unpleasantness of following Jesus' teachings, nor does it put a shiny veneer on the Yahweh worshippers prior to Jesus' earthly arrival. If there is a problem with the Bible being what it is, then take a look at other historical, legal, and biographical documents. You'll likely find the same "faults."

You opened with a fallacy. Including the events in a history book does not de facto create bias. Bias rather depends on the way it was written and presented. Merely reporting the fact that it happened isn't demonstrating bias. Regardless of who started it, it was still a Civil War, and thus the American Civil War IS a fairly balanced term for it. Calling it "The War on Slavery" or something similar would be decidedly pro-northern. To be fair, by all accounts American history texts do suffer from heavy pro-northern, pro-american bias, so maybe YOUR books are like that. Still doesn't change the fact that reportage alone is not bias.

The bible is heavily biased. The difference between it and the rest of the "historical documents" is that far too many of the people reading it fail to understand that it IS biased.

Also, you seem to be assuming that I think that EVERYTHING in the bible is biased and incorrect. That is not the case. My issue is more that people fail to interpret it in the same way other documents are interpreted (similarly true of most religious texts.) It certainly should not be taken as a definitive guide to any historical event, no questions asked.

As for the rather harsh treatment of the Israelites by their god (the anti-propaganda style).. surely this is written as a huge dose of "Your God Is Vengeful". Those who are documented as disobeying the word of God are punished, and here is the big book of nasty punishments to show everybody. The chunks of the bible where the Israelites are a bunch of genocidal a***holes is exactly the same thing: Look at how terrifiying the People of God are. Obey HIM or meet THEM. When their battles fail, they are punished because God wanted to show them right up.

I'm sure there are plenty of American frothers here who would be willing at length to demonstrate how all news media is biased, especially CNN.

I never said IGNORE. I counsel reading it properly, fully, and with as much common sense and cross-referencing as with any other "historical document.", and with a healthy dose of reality to finish.

Yes, I most certainly DID open with a fallacy, and I did so to make a point, largely which you got and agreed with. You've made the same fallacy, though, and I'm not sure you are willing to acknowledge it. You are quick to point out that fallacy when I wrote it. Yet you make the same mistake. "Reportage alone is not bias," followed with "The bible is heavily biased." The bible is nothing if not, in your words, "reportage." That makes your statement contradictory. The only thing biased here is your view against the Bible.

EDIT: I've often brought up liberal bias regarding CNN and NPR, with CNN having a little bit more of an eye to popular appeal while NPR seems to be a bell-bottomed, "bleeding heart" dumping ground for those who couldn't get jobs with the networks. The response to that is that CNN shows conservative bias BECAUSE they report more in favor of libs/left-wingers while NPR shoots STRAIGHT down the centrist middle. That there are so many here on this forum who are that vocal about it only shows how hopelessly brainwashed so many have become. Me, personally--I enjoy Fox News, but I recognize the decidedly conservative slant. I enjoy it because the reporting favors my own interests and ideals. If you REALLY want to get a balanced perspective, the best thing to do is alternate watching CNN with Fox--after all, we live in a society that allows us to do that. My preferred listening on the way to and from work is AFR, which to me is the polar opposite of NPR. AFR is aimed specifically at Christian listeners and is much gentler than, say, Rush Limbaugh. I also appreciate the "activist" aspect of it, for example, which actually seeks to benefit the whole rather than the few. They have succeeded to a degree in limiting inappropriate content during "family" broadcast time, i.e. when children would be watching. If that is bias, so be it. But it does satisfy a need for such programming. It would be, like, saying Keyboard Magazine should be banned or censored because it doesn't discuss the latest and greatest in guitar and guitar effect processing. Hey, if you aren't a keyboard player, don't read their magazine!

Some parts of the bible are certainly reportage. In fact that seems to be the major issue with the Bible as a "historical document"...that it is not a single document or even single type of document. It is more akin to a scrapbook of genealogies, historical records, first, second and third party observations, quotes, misquotes..and so on. Perhaps therein lies the flaw in trying to treat it as either "historical documents" or "Epic Fairy Tale", when it is something of both and everything in between. Perhaps also I should be more specific. IMO the Bible in the versions that exist today, has been constructed with a heavy bias. A great deal of "editing" has gone on for a variety of reasons over the years, which brings the historical accuracy of the whole into doubt. Its like a more subtle version of Soviet Era newspapers, where people would disappear from photographs as they fell out of favour. So for example, any speech or prophecy that might oppose recognised church opinion could be and probably has been excised, regardless of how accurate the source. Thus the proverbial pinch of salt should be applied when reading its contents.

What do you mean by "editing" first of all, and do you claim that the Masoretic text was "edited" to comply with the Christian transcriptions of the Old Testament?

Those things which have been "excised" are things that are KNOWN (for various reasons) to be contradictory or uninspired text. You may be unnecessarily reading bias into the fact that OT prophets believed themselves not to be representing their own views but rather speaking the very words of God to the people of Israel and Judah--in fact, some prophets spoke or wrote to the surrounding nations. Certain OT texts, such as Bel and the Dragon, were never really accepted in the Jewish canon as inspired text and, for whatever reason, were added by the Catholic Church. Quotes from apocrypha are often used to justify a uniquely Catholic doctrine. These texts are recognized by Protestants as not really having a rightful place in the canon.

Other texts, however, are recognized even by the Catholic Church as contradictory, false, or outright misleading. The Gnostic heresy is based upon supposed "secret knowledge" that Christ revealed only to a chosen few. Among other reasons, these so-called "gospels" show a significantly later enough time of writing to warrant exclusion from a collection of texts which were prevalent soon after (as soon as, say, 30-40 years) the life and ministry of Jesus. The early church took some time in becoming organized, and there was a plethora of texts, oral traditions, and teachings which varied from place to place. It should come as no surprise that false teachers seized the opportunity and, perhaps, fabricated deceptive gospels. The Gospels and Letters that we DO have correspond to the earliest texts which were the most commonly used and most widely disseminated among these various congregations. They are all in agreement. The early Christians agreed that those texts were inspired and attested to the inerrancy of truth contained within them. In fact, as Christianity grew and listed heads of state among its adherents, Church leaders came under political pressure to reevaluate the canon and include gnostic gospels and other texts. Every time, at great risk to themselves and the very religion itself, those counsels upheld the established canon. We Christians need not fear that our Bible is the "right" Bible. We tend to hold "special" translations of the Bible suspect.

MOST translations I'm aware of are drawn from various early manuscripts such as the Masoretic text and the LXX. What is interesting is that older manuscripts or fragments of older manuscripts (e.g. the Dead Sea scrolls) have been used to compare various early manuscripts. The results of such comparison are indeed revealing: There is surprisingly little variance between the manuscripts most commonly in use when writing Biblical translations and older manuscripts. The OT alone has roughly better than 95% copying accuracy. Compared to other ancient texts, that is highly unusual. The only other well-known text from the ancient world that is so widely distributed and has the best known copying accuracy is Homer's Iliad, and it doesn't even come close to the OT. The "errors" of the OT take the form of scribal margin notes that became confused with the regular text, minor grammatical errors, and accidental letter substitutions. With only a little work, any reader can figure out what was more likely meant in certain passages. But considering how large the OT is, these discrepancies should account for more of the text. Yet it remains the most faithfully reproduced text of the ancient world. And never once do these "errors" alter Biblical truth one bit.

The copying accuracy of the NT is actually better than 99%. Once again, the supposed discrepancies do not change Gospel truth at all. And if there is any doubt about textual editing, many good Bible translations (if you ever care to read one) will actually indicate PRECISELY which passages are included that are omitted in other manuscripts. Those passages are likely carryovers from early church oral traditions, like the account of the adulterous woman caught in the act or the ending of the Gospel of Mark. These passages are not out of character, very well could have happened, and in no way change the underlying truth of the whole.

You still haven't demonstrated Biblical bias, only that you assume it to be a biased document from the outset. If you're talking about one translation in particular, I'll agree with you because I am aware of one that most Christians agree has been changed specifically to support the teachings of ONE group. For MOST of us, this is not the case. You can't judge ALL Bible translations on one that is known to have been altered to support a single view. Rather consider whether it is not the Bible that is biased, but rather your own views.

The very fact that the book as a whole is not a SINGLE TEXT but a collection of CHOSEN texts is proof of editorial presence. Texts have been left out for a variety of reasons. THAT is editing. Editing is not just slicing out individual lines of text you know. It can also mean additions to the text, and the removal or replacement of whole sections, and the order they are in. I have no intention of debating each and every addition, subtraction, correction throughout the entire collection of texts because that would be an insanely vast undertaking for a forum thread. My point remains that the Bible should be studied WITH THE KNOWLEDGE that just because it is written, does not make it accurate. It should be studied with the same discipline as the Talbot Book of Hours or the Magna Carta. I do not claim that it should be wholesale ignored, simply because it is a religious text. After all, great reams of historical texts were written by religious men, and to exclude them on that basis alone would pretty much destroy recognised history and create a new much longer dark ages.

Its morbidly amusing that simply because I counsel the use of common sense when interpreting a given text (which holds true of ANY text) I should be labelled as biased. Do Christians fear that a proper and sensible appraisal of their "historical documents" will invalidate their arguments? SOME Christians seem to have actually read their book and had a good stab at analysing it. Others seem to believe anything they are told, an it come from that book.

So I re-iterate. I counsel that people consider the bible with the same academic procedures as ANY OTHER DOCUMENT before they declare that it is an accurate historical document.

@ Angel-Rho: Interestingly enough on a sidebar I have had a similar argument with Muslims when they refuse to accept that there could be any translation or transcription errors in their holy text AT ALL EVER. It speaks volumes that there is Christian acceptance that there definitely ARE such errors in the Bible, and is quite refreshing. After all, God (or his prophets) may be infallible, but humanity is not.

A library also has not a single text, but a collection of chosen texts, so that is proof of editorial presence. Texts have been left out for a variety of reasons. THAT is "editing"? Oh good grief.

That's more of a wicker man than a straw man. I could put you in it and set fire to it and Christopher Lee would sing at you.

1) A library is not considered or read as a single volume. Unless they are on related subjects, one book in a library will bear little or no relevance to another book in a different part.

2) Libraries (especially state funded ones) have ALWAYS been party to an editing process because books are chosen to be placed into that library by those running that library. Many books ARE left out of libraries, for cost reasons, or content reasons, or taste reasons. Others are included for those reasons. In the UK whole shelves of books have been removed from libraries simply because the shelves are too high. (PC BS at work there.) Thus the collection of books on a given subject is truncated because some have to be removed for space considerations. I would also point out that I only own the complete works of L Ron Hubbard because the local libraries got sent those books and refused to stock them. That is editing...the removal of a whole religious text simply because the authorities think its a load of s**t. Other people who wish to read those books cannot access them through the library service. (Never mind the fact that they ARE a load of s**t, its the principle.) IN fact that is EXACTLY the sort of editing I'm referring to. Church authorities (whichever ones) fiddling with chunks of the bible because they think that bit is heretical s**t.

The "errors" are minuscule, barely even worth mentioning other than the fact that they exist. In no way do such diminish the underlying truth of the text.

One thing I WILL agree with you on is that most believers do tend to "believe anything they are told." But keep in mind if a teacher uses Biblical passages in order and in context, there is no need to assume that the teacher is incorrect in his interpretation. A believer is free, whether he chooses to or not, to actually read and understand scripture for himself to verify or discredit what has been given to him by a teacher or pastor. For a long time I felt a sense of "wrongness" about certain things I was taught and I understand the mistakes my teachers made. But I only understand that from spiritual maturity and actually reading the text. Those teachers and pastors meant well, but they'd have done better to be careful about what they tell children.

That said...

I know full well what editing is and is not. What you seem to be saying is that the Bible is not trustworthy based on the fact that books have been "edited" out of the finished compilation. Sure, the Bible has multiple sources, each with different themes and purposes. What the Bible lacks, however, is evidence of doctrinal tampering, which is usually what is assumed by "editing." Why, for example, do the Gospels have so much harmony from one writer to the next? Matthew and John were very close to the events themselves. Mark and Luke were written by close associates of apostles, particularly Peter (among the 12) and Paul (from the Damascus road experience and later answering to closer followers of Jesus). Apparently Mark is a collection of Peter's teachings based on the life of Jesus as an eyewitness and a sort of "chief" disciple, but lacks any sophisticated order. Luke, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive account, much more eloquently presented, and shows more literary discipline than the other Gospels. It's important to note they are not strictly organized in any chronological way UNTIL the triumphal entry. So you have two eyewitness accounts, three if you count Mark as the written record of Peter's recollections, and one thorough investigative report. In a court of law in the western world, this kind of evidence would be an open-and-shut case. According to Jewish customs, it was MORE than enough.

Now, about those books that have been "edited out." Unbelievers and critics LOVE pointing out supposed contradictions and inconsistencies in scripture. This is nothing for a well-read Christian to worry about because that person will know that those things most often can be reconciled quite easily--there are only a tiny number of passages that really are difficult. Imagine, though, if apocrypha, especially heretical writings, were also made a part of the canon! Issues of free will versus predestination would pale in comparison with the difficulties of one writer saying "faith alone" next to another writer saying "knowledge" as being necessary for salvation. What knowledge? How much knowledge? "Knowledge" as criteria for salvation fails purely on logical grounds! It's simply impossible to "know enough" to get into heaven!

So Gnostic gospels come into direct conflict with what we know as the canonical gospels. EITHER the Gnostics are right OR the "justified through faith" Christians are right. There cannot be anything in between. Do you see how impossible it would be for any religion based upon a mix of the two to be taken seriously at all? I really don't think our faith could have endured quite as long as it has, or even really made it past the 2nd or 3rd century, if early church leaders hadn't taken a stand and boldly said THIS is what we believe and accept. And those things they believed and accepted were those things widely known to have been taught by Jesus and His disciples throughout the known world and oft referred to by early church leaders.

The Bible of the 1st Century WAS a careful collection of independent recollections of the life and teaching of Jesus as well as letters read to congregations and distributed among them and other churches. Compiling those books and letters into a single resource is, well, compiling, NOT editing. Therefore books cannot be "edited out" of the canon if they were never accepted into it in the first place! Rather, it was Constantius II who really tried to push Arianism on the empire and include false teachings as part of Christian doctrine, not early church leaders. In fact, he essentially fired bishops who disagreed with him in an attempt to push acceptance of Arianism on Christians in the empire. No matter how hard he tried, a pro-Arian consensus could never be reached in church counsels. In debating those issues, they sent the message that Arianism simply wasn't compatible with Christianity. In the end, trinitarianism was upheld, and gradually emperors interfered less and less in the matters of doctrine. And the Biblical canon has gone unchanged ever since.

There WAS a Gospel of Hebrews that ALMOST made it into the canon. It only exists in fragments now, but what little we know about it is that it began with Jesus' preexistence and included His descent from heaven and His birth. He is described as the son of the Holy Spirit and reports His temptation. His teaching is also recorded. It's possible that it included Jesus' burial and how the guards of His tomb witnessed His resurrection. James says He won't eat again until he sees Jesus resurrected, and it probably includes an account of how Jesus appeared to James. The main problems with the Gospel of Hebrews is Gnostic influence and no connection with any apostle. Since its authority is questionable, there's no reason it SHOULD be included as part of the Bible.

And it's no secret that there were other Gospels circulating that isn't part of the canon. It's also no secret that modern day Christians still write books about their faith. Those responsible for compiling the NT canon had to concern themselves with what books were the most authoritative accounts of actual contact with Jesus, were written by people who actually KNEW Jesus, and so on. So while there were certainly any number of books compatible with Christian doctrine and compatible with the 4 accepted Gospels, church leaders had little to no doubt whatsoever about the 4 most commonly used ones. "Compatible" books would not have included any more or less than the canonical gospels. Therefore, how are those gospels "missing" or edited out? They are only replaced by books that say the same thing which we can know without a doubt have authority. Which source is a scholar likely to trust more: An eyewitness account by someone thoroughly knowledgable about the subject, or a book written by an everyday Josephus that is only written ABOUT what someone else witnessed? Hearsay is NEVER acceptable in a court of law, and accepting other gospels of which the source is called into question does not lend itself to any weight or authority as an inspired work. Only the accepted gospels and letters (and the Revelation of John) meet such strict textual requirements. We have no need whatsoever to question the authority of those books. In fact, that authority has been repeatedly called into question for over a millennium. The Bible's authority has been strongly and definitively affirmed every time.

Further, the degree to which said authority has been questioned has been consistently to the rigorous extent of other historical documents. For as long as there will be doubters, the Bible will remain on trial. The verdict will undeniable come back the same as it has for many hundreds of years now, and yet doubters will always find some excuse not to believe. But the Bible was ultimately penned by God through those who had a close relationship with Him. God never forced anyone to believe in Him. Neither can the Bible force those determined not to believe, e.g. those who are determined to remain closed-minded and biased against Biblical authority. If you choose not to believe, it isn't because the Bible isn't authoritative, persuasive, or convincing, but rather because you lack any will whatsoever to acknowledge that. All I can do is point out where historical criticism is/isn't correct and where anti-Biblical sentiment and bias has clouded the mind of the unbeliever. I can help explain things that seem contradictory or don't make sense. But I can't open your mind for you, nor can I make you want to undertake a serious, fair, and unbiased examination of the text.

You have yet to show textual bias within the Bible.